Dear Mickstar,
I understand how upsetting it can feel to believe that a casino has not protected you properly, and I am sorry for the frustration this situation has caused.
After conducting an independent review of the available communication and account history, I must inform you that I am unable to support your claim further.
Regarding communication from the operator, the evidence shows that any contact made was promotional in nature and related solely to general offers. No guarantees, promises, or assurances of winnings were made. Participation in gameplay was not presented as an obligation. Promotional communication, in itself, does not override personal autonomy or transfer responsibility for gambling decisions.
With respect to account reactivation, your account had previously been closed at your request. The subsequent reopening could occur only after a player confirms that he wishes to resume playing and completes the necessary reactivation steps. Based on the information reviewed, the system does not allow an account to be reopened without the account holder’s active request or confirmation. Therefore, the decision to reactivate the account was made upon your explicit confirmation.
Concerning responsible gaming obligations, operators are expected to provide tools for restriction and self-exclusion. However, once a player requests reactivation and confirms their intention to resume play, the operator is generally entitled to rely on that confirmation unless there is clear evidence of a prior, explicit self-exclusion due to gambling addiction. Based on the documentation available, such a clearly stated self-exclusion request was not submitted before reactivation.
Regarding financial losses, your complaint focuses on activity after the account was reopened. When assessing such matters, the full account history must be considered. The deposits made after reactivation were initiated voluntarily and used in accordance with the applicable terms and conditions. I have not found sufficient evidence of a breach of responsible gaming obligations that would justify recommending a refund.
For these reasons, I must conclude that there are no grounds to support a refund request in this case.
That said, if you feel that gambling has become difficult to manage, it may be beneficial to consider formal self-exclusion. You may find the following assistance tool helpful for excluding yourself across multiple gambling platforms:
https://casino.guru/global-self-exclusion-initiative/assistance-tool
Additionally, professional support services specializing in gambling-related harm can be found here:
https://casino.guru/problem-gambling-help-centers#cnt_87=true
I regret that a more favorable outcome was not possible, but I hope this explanation clarifies the reasoning behind the decision. I am sorry that we were not able to help you with this matter. However, please do not hesitate to contact us in the future if you encounter any issues with this or any other casino. We will do our best to assist you.
Kind regards,
Petra
Dear Mickstar,
I understand how upsetting it can feel to believe that a casino has not protected you properly, and I am sorry for the frustration this situation has caused.
After conducting an independent review of the available communication and account history, I must inform you that I am unable to support your claim further.
Regarding communication from the operator, the evidence shows that any contact made was promotional in nature and related solely to general offers. No guarantees, promises, or assurances of winnings were made. Participation in gameplay was not presented as an obligation. Promotional communication, in itself, does not override personal autonomy or transfer responsibility for gambling decisions.
With respect to account reactivation, your account had previously been closed at your request. The subsequent reopening could occur only after a player confirms that he wishes to resume playing and completes the necessary reactivation steps. Based on the information reviewed, the system does not allow an account to be reopened without the account holder’s active request or confirmation. Therefore, the decision to reactivate the account was made upon your explicit confirmation.
Concerning responsible gaming obligations, operators are expected to provide tools for restriction and self-exclusion. However, once a player requests reactivation and confirms their intention to resume play, the operator is generally entitled to rely on that confirmation unless there is clear evidence of a prior, explicit self-exclusion due to gambling addiction. Based on the documentation available, such a clearly stated self-exclusion request was not submitted before reactivation.
Regarding financial losses, your complaint focuses on activity after the account was reopened. When assessing such matters, the full account history must be considered. The deposits made after reactivation were initiated voluntarily and used in accordance with the applicable terms and conditions. I have not found sufficient evidence of a breach of responsible gaming obligations that would justify recommending a refund.
For these reasons, I must conclude that there are no grounds to support a refund request in this case.
That said, if you feel that gambling has become difficult to manage, it may be beneficial to consider formal self-exclusion. You may find the following assistance tool helpful for excluding yourself across multiple gambling platforms:
https://casino.guru/global-self-exclusion-initiative/assistance-tool
Additionally, professional support services specializing in gambling-related harm can be found here:
https://casino.guru/problem-gambling-help-centers#cnt_87=true
I regret that a more favorable outcome was not possible, but I hope this explanation clarifies the reasoning behind the decision. I am sorry that we were not able to help you with this matter. However, please do not hesitate to contact us in the future if you encounter any issues with this or any other casino. We will do our best to assist you.
Kind regards,
Petra